Slum Tourism

A Case Study of Kibera

MG423 Hospitality and Tourism Analysis: Case Studies and Case Histories
Slum Tourism Case Study
18/12/2014
Word count: 2,788

I confirm that the work undertaken for this assignment is entirely my own and that I have not
made any use of unauthorised assistance.
The sources of all reference materials have been properly acknowledged.

I have read and understood the statement relating to academic dishonesty and plagiarism
published in the ‘Department of Strategy and Organisation Undergraduate Handbook’ on My
Place. I hereby confirm that this assignment complies fully with these guidelines.

Slum Tourism: A Case Study of Kibera

Introduction
In recent years slum tourism has seen a significant rise in popularity (Meschkank, 2011). This
paper aims to discuss the increasing demand for slum tourism and the motivations behind it.
Firstly, the literature review will discuss slum tourism and its beginnings before highlighting the
current issues surrounding slum tourism today. Secondly, the paper will look at the case of
Kibera, in Nairobi, the largest slum in Africa. This paper will examine Kibera Tours, a slum tour
operator in Kibera and use secondary data in order to analyse the tour operator effectively.
Finally, the paper will conclude drawing from the literature to discuss the importance of slum
tourism.

Literature Review
Slum Tourism and its beginnings
The word ‘slum’ was a slang expression that was used to describe individual lodgings. This
expression then developed into describing backyards (‘back slums’) until it arrived at its modern
use to describe whole urban areas (Mayne, 1993). Furthermore, the term ‘slumming’ was broadly
used to define the activities pursued by the upper and upper-middle classes who toured through
some of the poorest areas of London at the end of the nineteenth century (Koven, 2006). The
activities of these classes in London has been perceived as the very beginning of slum tourism
which today describes guided tours through some of the poorest city quarters in the world
(Rolfes, 2010). Since the 1990’s we have witnessed the birth of several professional tour
companies which have provided tours though a number of cities including Rio de Janeiro, Cape
Town and Mumbai (Meschkank, 2011). It can be argued that the increase in popularity of these
tours is due to the fact that they create access too areas and spaces that outsiders perceive as
inaccessible, whilst also giving an insight into the day to day activities within these areas which
can create an authentic and real experience for the tour-goer (MacCannell, 1973). Steinbrink
states that ‘tourism lives on what is different’ suggesting that this leads to the constant urge to
create and find products and open up new segments on the market (Steinbrink, 2012). However,
this idea that the constant demand for new tourism ventures is not the only suggestion for the rise
in slum tourism, perhaps slum tourism can be linked to touristic phenomena due to its recent
portrayal in popular culture (Meschkank, 2011). A current example of this is in India. Slum
tourism has increasingly expanded in the country and it has been suggested that the demand for
this type of tourism can be linked to the huge media attention that came with Hollywood film
Slumdog Millionaire (2009). The eight-times Oscar awarded film was filmed against the
backdrop of Dharavi, the largest slum in Mumbai (Hannam & Knox, 2010). However, with this
new attention comes the threat that after the hype has died, these slums will again be forgotten
about and left to fend for themselves.
Tourist Motivations and Authenticity
Rolfes identifies that one of the principal motivations for tourists participation in slum tours is a
basic interest into the country’s culture and the way in which the people live, combined with the
desire to experience the complexity and diversity of the place (Rolfes, 2010). Conran believes
that ‘tourists interpret authenticity through their own experiences’ (Conran, 2006). A tourists
desire to experience authenticity could highlight their interest and motivations in slum tourism as
townships, favelas and slums can be defined as places of authenticity. These areas are said to
portray the true day to day life of a city or country (Meschkank, 2011). Moreover, many of the
slums tours stop at social and charitable projects (Tosun, 2006). For tourists this is an
opportunity to give back to and help the local communities which they are visiting (Urry, 1990).
It can be said that these tourists are motivated by the desire to show love and concern for the
poor and help in the fight against poverty (Lo & Lee, 2011). In addition, some tourists identify
slum tourism as providing educational benefits. Slum tours offer tourists the opportunity to
broaden their horizons and give them an insight in to a different way of living. It allows tourists
to reflect upon their own lives and appreciate the things that they have (Meschkank, 2011).
Current debate surrounding slum tourism
Exploitation
There is currently a large amount of debate surrounding slum tourism. A large number of people
view it negatively as they perceive it as people looking at poverty from a nice air conditioned
room, like viewing it through tinted glasses. Tourists take part in these tours then go back to their
nice hotels. Therefore, it has been argued that slums tours are exploiting the slum residents
(Meschkank, 2011). Furthermore, critics argue that slums residents are treated like animals in a
zoo. Tourists roam through their slum watching their daily activities which can be viewed as
turning their lives into a spectacle, a form of entertainment for the upper classes (Basu, 2012).
Mayer states that exploitation can be perceived as ‘wrongful gain’. Although some residents of
the slums may benefit from these tours, not all of the residents are. The majority of residents will
not have consented to the tours and despite not receiving anything from them, they are still being
subjected to the humiliation and degradation that accompanies them (Mayer, 2007). In fact, in
certain areas government officials have suggested that slum tours should be banned and tour
operators punished due to the exploitive nature of the tours (Basu, 2012).
Staging
MacCannell acknowledges that tourist destinations can be made to appear like a ‘backstage’,
somewhere not normally accessed by tourists, when in fact they are just as artificial as the ‘front
stage’, the main stream tourist destination (MacCannell, 1973). This is highlighted in the case of
Dhavari, where some tourists believe that they were only certain aspects of the slum in order to
leave them with a particular image. They believed that certain areas of the slums were being
masked and that the information they were being told was biased in order to give a more positive
image of the slum and to eradicate any existing negative views (Meschkank, 2011). Many tour
operators market their tours as a means to view ‘real’ life in these cities an countries however
this is an aspect that can be widely debated as contemporary tourism theory recognises that there
is no ‘one reality’ but in fact multiple realities (Bruner, 2004). In fact, Basu goes further to argue
that the label of ‘real tourism’ is insensitive and offensive. She argues that this tag undermines
other existing heritage, for example built heritage and natural heritage. By stating that slums are
the ‘real’ life of a city or country takes away from these other desirable destinations and can
create scepticism (Basu, 2012).
Economic Leakage
Economic leakage occurs when not all of the foreign currency created through tourism stays
within the local host communities (Ashley & Goodwin, 2007). For tourists it is important to
ensure they are aware what portion of their tour’s profit goes back into the community to support
responsible activities (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005) and to ensure that money
claimed to be redistributed back into the community is actually redistributed (Manyara & Jones,
2007). Economic leakage can pose a significant risk to slum tourism. If economic leakage occurs
it can create negative attitudes towards slum tourism and reduce the amount of visitors to the
slums (Burns, 1999).
Combatting the negative image of slums
Despite slums being surrounded by a negative image, slum tourism has emerged and been able to
establish itself in a number of cities across the world (Meschkank, 2011). Tour guides aim to
counter act the negative image of slums, one of poverty and misery, with a more positive image.
They try to show a more positive and real image of the slums often by focusing on the socio-
economic development of the slums (Freire-Medeiros, 2009). In order to do so, tourists are often
offered to buy products created within the slums. These products should aim to expand the
benefits to the poor and present steps for the authorities that will allow them to transform
strategies into actions for the improvement of slum living conditions (Croes & Vanegas, 2008).
Furthermore, although slums tours normally do not directly compensate the residents, operators
frequently offer opportunities or encourage tourists to donate to charitable organisations or take
part in volunteer work in the area (Whyte, Selinger, & Outterson, 2011)
Kibera

Nairobi is home to around 2.5 million slum dwellers in around 200 different settlements. Kibera
is home to almost one million of these people making it the largest slum in Africa and one of the
biggest in the world. The government have all the land rights in the area and only 10% of people
actually own their shacks, the rest of Kibera’s population are tenants with no rights. The shacks
are around 12ft x 12ft and constructed with mud walls, a tin roof and a concrete or mud floor. On
average, each shack houses eight or more people. Recently, two water pipes have been installed
in Kibera where residents can collect water. Beforehand, residents had to collect water from the
Nairobi dam, this water is not clean and often causes cholera and typhoid (Kibera UK, 2007).
Moreover, there are no government run hospitals or clinics in the slum, all medical aid comes
from charitable organisations. Only about 20% of Kibera has access to electricity however UN-
Habitat is in the process of trying to expand this and provide street and security lighting. In terms
of sanitation, there are no toilets in Kibera (Kibera UK, 2007). There are a number of latrines but
these are often shared by up to fifty shacks. Kibrera is also known for the ‘flying toilet’, this
occurs normally when the latrine is occupied, a person will use a plastic bag as toilet. This is then
thrown on the ground and with limited waste clearance creates a breeding ground for dangerous
diseases (The Kibera Law Centre, 2014). Furthermore, alcohol and drugs pose a problem in
Kibera. With around 50% of the population unemployed residents often start drinking early in
the day. The local drink of Changaa is widely available however often made incorrectly and with
an ABV of over 50%, it can have a huge effect on the drinker. Cheap drugs and glue sniffing are
also a problem for the residents of Kibera. The consumption of alcohol and drugs can lead to
violence, crime and rape within the slum (Kibera UK, 2007). The life expectancy of residents in
Kibera is incredibly low at only thirty years of age in comparison with rest of Kenya where it is
50 years of age (The Kibera Law Centre, 2014).
Methodology
In order to conduct research on the Kibera slum, secondary sources of data will be used. This
will include existing literature on slum tourism from books and journals. Moreover, data will be
collected from web sites and sites such as trip advisor which have reviewed the tours. The
existing literature will then be used to successfully analyse the chosen tour operator.
Findings
Kibera Tours is a Dutch-Kenyan organisation (http://kiberatours.com/). They offer tours through
the ‘friendliest slum in the world’, these tours are led by two guides who were born and live in
Kibera. They also state that ‘well-known security guard’ from Kibera will join tourists on the
tour in order to make them feel safer. Their tours costs 2,500 Kenyan shillings (around £17:67).
The web site states that Kibera is a ‘city of hope’. The tours provided will visit and support a
number of places including an orphanage/school, a bread factory, a biogas centre and a typical
Kibera house. However, it does not state in what way they will be supporting any of these places.
The web site provides an advice page for people who will be participating in the tours. This page
includes general advice on clothing and advice for people with young children but also highlights
the need to respect resident’s privacy. They state that tour-goers should not peer into people
homes and only take photos if they have asked for consent beforehand. Tourists are asked not to
bring any unnecessary valuables and not to give out gifts or money as it may create chaos. This
is also to avoid giving the residents the impression that tourists means gifts. The tour company
states that they will provide boxes for tourists to make donations in at the end, these donations
then go to charitable organisations within Kibera. Furthermore, they state that they have
connections to charitable organisations and youth groups in Kibera primarily through their tour
guides however there is no information provided as to what they do to support these groups or if
any money made from the tours then go to help aid the organisations.
Meaning of Findings
Kibera tours romanticises the slum through its use of language such as ‘friendliest slum in the
world’ and ‘city of hope’. As highlighted on the website the tours aim to portray the positive
side of the slum however it can be argued that by doing so they push the element of poverty into
the background (Sharpley & Stone, 2011). The tours try to show the ‘real’ and ‘authentic’ side
of Kibera which they believe encompasses the prospering organisations and volunteer projects
but this further detaches the slums from a place of poverty and need. This can then make tourists
believe that there is no need to help these people or provide any aid as they are helping
themselves. Furthermore, this romanticising of the slum could also be considered staging. Cohen
defines as a method to ‘mask subjective images of a place and its people, and communicate them
as objective reality’ (Cohen, 1989). By focusing primarily on the positive elements of the slum,
they are masking the real poverty within it. They want to create a specific image within the
tourists mind which may not in fact be the reality.
Kibera Tours appears to try and benefit the local area by citing their connections to local
organisations but the website lacks precise information as to what contributions they make or if
any percentage of the profit from the tours goes to benefit the residents. This perhaps highlights
an element of economic leakage. Supradist portrays that tourism can help economic growth
however if a high level of economic leakage exists then the local community does not benefit
from this and only see the negative impacts of having tourists view their lives (Supradist, 2004).
In addition, this could also lead the tourists to questions the motivations of Kibera Tours. Despite
on the surface appearing to want to improve and better the slum, they are not forthcoming with
how they plan to do so. Research shows that despite wanting to bring about positive social and
economic improvements, the majority of tour operators conduct tours primarily because of profit
based motivations (Sharpley & Stone, 2011). It can be questioned that this is the motivation
behind Kibera Tours.
Moreover, Sharpley and Stone highlight how tour operators often use the preconceived negative
perceptions of the slums to their advantage in order to promote their own tours as ‘real’ and
‘authentic’ (Sharpley & Stone, 2011). Kibera Tours could be considered as using this method as
their whole web site focuses primarily on the idea that the slums is not a place of poverty but one
of hope. While this idea cannot be entirely rejected, it is extremely evident that the slum is an
area of intense poverty with a need for social and economic aid.
Conclusion
Slum tourism is surrounded by ambiguity. It allows for moral ambiguity which is difficult to
analyse and address (Fenzel, Koens, & Steinbrink, 2012). The motivations of tour operators can
never fully be understood. Not only does it incorporate a large amount of ambiguity but it can be
argued that the economic benefits of slum tourism are debatable (Meschkank, 2011). The huge
risk of economic leakage especially in these extremely deprived areas can leave tourists
questioning the purpose of the tours if no improvements are being made to the local
communities. On the other hand, the idea of slum tourism can appear exploitive and voyeuristic
however without slum tourism there would be limited opportunities for people to access these
communities and really learn about and experience extreme poverty. An element of exploitation
will always exist in slum tourism as it is people witnessing and watching people living in
poverty. It could argued however that even if a small amount of money, or the tourists donations
and time spent at volunteer projects within the slum creates benefits or improvements, then
maybe a small amount of exploitation is a good price to pay.

Works Cited
Andereck, L., Valentine, K., Knopf, R., & Vogt, C. (2005). Resident's perceptions of community tourism
impacts. Annals of Tourism Research 32(4), 1056-1076.
Ashley, C., & Goodwin, H. (2007). Pro poor tourism: Whats gone right and whats gone wrong? . London:
Overseas Development Institute.

Basu, K. (2012). Slum tourism for the poor by the poor. In F. Fenzel, K. Koens, & M. Steinbrink, Slum
tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics Vol. 32 (pp. 66-81). Oxon: Routledge.

Bruner, E. (2004). Culture on Tour. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Burns, P. (1999). Paradoxes in Planning: Tourism elitism or brutalism? Annals of Tourism Research 26,
329-348.

Cohen, E. (1989). Primitive and remote hill tribe trekking in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 16, 30-
61.

Conran, M. (2006). Beyond authenticity: Exploring intimacy in the touristic encounter in Thailand.
Tourism Geographies 8(3), 274-285.

Croes, R., & Vanegas, M. (2008). Cointegration and Casuality Between Tourism and Poverty Reduction.
Journal of Travel Research 47(1), 94-103.

Fenzel, F., Koens, K., & Steinbrink, M. (2012). Slum Tourism: Poverty, power and ethics. Vol 32. Oxon:
Routledge.

Freire-Medeiros, B. (2009). The Favela and its Touristic Transits. Geoforum 40(4), 580-588.

Hannam, K., & Knox, D. (2010). Understanding Tourism. London: Sage.

Kibera UK. (2007). Facts and Information about Kibera. Retrieved from Kibera UK- The Gap Year
Company: http://www.kibera.org.uk/Facts.html

Koven, S. (2006). Sexual and Social Politics in Victorian London. Princeton: University Press.

Lo, A., & Lee, C. (2011). Motivations and perceived value of volunteer tourists from Honk Kong. Tourism
Management 32(2), 326-334.

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American
Journal of Sociology 79(3), 589-603.

Manyara, G., & Jones, E. (2007). Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An
exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
15(6), 628-644.

Mayer, R. (2007). What's wrong with exploitation? Journal of Applied Philosophy 24(2), 137-150.

Mayne, A. (1993). The Imagined Slum. Leicester: University Press.

Meschkank, J. (2011). Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: Poverty, tourism and the tensions
between different constructions of reality. GeoJournal 76, 47-62.

Rolfes, M. (2010). Poverty Tourism: Theoretical reflections and empirical findings on extraordinary form
of tourism. GeoJournal 75(5), 421-442.

Sharpley, R., & Stone, P. (2011). Tourist Experience: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.
Steinbrink, M. (2012). 'We did the slum!'- Urban poverty tourism in historical perspective. Tourism
Geographies: An international journal of tourism space, place and enivonrment 14(2), 213-234.

Supradist, N. (2004, October). Economic Leakage in Tourism Sector. Lund, Sweden: Unpublished Thesis .

The Kibera Law Centre. (2014). Facts. Retrieved from The Kibera Law Centre:
http://kiberalawcentre.org/facts/

Tosun, C. (2006). Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism

Management 27(3), 493-504.

Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary society. London: Sage.

Whyte, K., Selinger, E., & Outterson, K. (2011). Poverty Tourism and the Problem of consent. Journal of
Global Ethics, 337-348.